This program, which is administered by the City’s Bureau of Environmental Services, was created to fund community projects in neighborhoods impacted by the East Side Big Pipe project.
The projects were approved by an advisory committee made up of citizens, neighborhood associations, and environmental groups.

\”$4,800 to stripe bike lanes on SE Division Place between 4th and 9th Avenues\”

This really seems like wasted money to me. I ride this stretch of road everyday and frankly I don\’t think that if they were to put bike lanes on this road that it would be safe. If you are going west on this stretch of road you can\’t safely ride anywhere near the right hand side of the road because the road is so terrible. There is a gigantic raised portion of the road that looks like someone put concrete over a raised man hole followed by numerous large holes in the road. This coupled with the fact that this stretch has a relatively low number of cars seems like it is just a waste of money to paint stripes in places where it is unsafe to ride.

Hopefully I am missing something and they plan to use the money to fix the road at the same time.

Props to Lenny @ Swan Island TMA..those sidewalks/off street bike trails will connect to the NP Greenway when it gets funded and built,and the Waud Bluff trail ( which Lenny also helped secure funding for..) which hopefully will be built soon.. the moneys there but!

Connecting the jobs on Swan Island to the Peninsula and downtown will only improve the transportation possibilities for the whole city.

Curb extensions at SE 11th and Clay aren\’t going to benefit cyclists anymore than the existing curb extensions at SE Clay and Grand or the curb extensions under construction at SE 12th and Clay. These curb extensions are actually impediments to cyclists which act to limit ROW space available for cyclists to operate in.

Point One – why would any bicyclist in their right mind WANT to bicycle on 11th or 12th? You can bicycle much, much more safely on 10th Avenue, which is as quiet as a doormouse. Just a suggestion.

Point Two – Curb extentions are constructed to extend out only as as far as the parking bay does.

Therefore, logically, if you are running into a curb extention while biking, you are biking in the wrong place – the parking bay, when you should be biking in the travel lane. Weaving in and out between the parking lane and the travel lane is one of the most dangerous things you can do on a bike. Instead, try maintaining a straight trajectory in the travel lane, out of the door zone of parked cars.

Point three – curb extentions help me immensely as a bicylist trying to cross busy roads. They put me out in the sightline of traffic, and because they remove a couple of parking spaces as parking spaces as part of their design, improve my visibility of oncoming traffic immensely, because instead of having a big SUV blocking my immediate view, there is the curb extention.

Whoops. Should have clarified…. my comments were in reponse to BURR (#4)\’s comment implying that one should bicycle **on** 11th & 12th, and not in any way against the HAWK signal crossing those roads.

I\’m against these rigs. I\’m usually real positive about investments in the bike/ped infrastructure, but these signals are nonsensical. I would much prefer a regular demand-driven signal like at the Belmont Library (with the addition of a traffic light for 41st and its analogues at the new sites).

ORS 811.260 says nothing about lights in the shape of bikes (I\’m looking at 2005 law; please tell me if it\’s changed). If I approach on 41st in a car and the bike light is green, can I proceed without stopping? Can a bike? ORS says a clear yes 811.260(1) AND a clear no 811.260(11) to both questions.

Having doubled red lights is fine; I love it. But what is wrong with a flashing red on 41st that would turn to a flashing yellow, like normal? Everyone would understand that, and it would serve exactly the intended purpose. What purpose is served by all this novelty? I feel that it is intended to emphasize that bikes are not vehicles, a position I disagree with in general. It lumps bikes with peds, and that will lead to trouble in both cyclists\’ rights and peds\’ safety.

More problems with the light at 41st and Burnside:
– If you approach it when there is no traffic and the bike light is red, can a bike proceed after stopping? The law is unclear.
– Suppose it is green? Can a car proceed without stopping? The law is unclear. Common sense would suggest yes, since to get the light to change the motorist would have to get out, and push the button.
– If you wait a long time the red bike light goes out. Now what? Is it just a stop sign? Gee, that would be a relief.
– Except that if the cyclist ahead of you pushes the button, it goes instantly from black to red (no interval of yellow) so you\’re breaking the law if you can\’t stop in time.
– This all seems nitpicky, but it is indicative of a stupid design. $364,000 is a lot of money for a stupid design.

Finally, the bike shaped light is too hard to see without perfect vision. Mine\’s not too bad, certainly good enough to pass the driving test without correction. I can tell the light isn\’t a disc, but it\’s a good thing a bike is the only other choice, because it looks like a Hooters ad.

I vote for less nonsense. Let\’s use the extra cash to buy right of way instead of novelties.

Biking on se 11th and 12th during a.m. and p.m. rush times is not the smartest thing. Everyone is vying for position going north and turning onto Madison…just waiting for an accident, as is going south crossing Clinton and \’s\’ turning towards Powell. Especially in the rainy season.

I\’m talking about the curb extensions limiting operating ROW for cyclists on SE Clay, not on SE 11th or 12th. Beyond shortening the crossing for pedestrians by one or two steps, the primary benefit of curb extensions is to fully protect and preserve curb side parking for motorists, while producing negative benefits for cyclists, mostly because they act to limit or prevent forward filtering in gridlock situations.

There are a lot more cyclists on the SE Clay bike boulevard than pedestrians on SE 11th and 12th who would benefit from these curb extensions, and PDOT has their priorities all screwed up if they are building curb extensions along major bike routes for non-existant pedestrians which ends up causing a lowering of the level of service for cyclists.

Similar misplaced curb extensions recently built or under construction include the one on the SW corner of NW Everett and 16th, which now prevents installation of a right turn only lane at this location, and curb extensions at the SW corner of SW Madison and 5th and the SE corner of SW Madison and 6th, which will affect many cyclists headed out of downtown via the Hawthorne bridge, causing them to either (1) become trapped in PM gridlock, (2) split lanes to filter forward or (3) ride illegally on the sidewalk to pass the gridlocked traffic.

Curb extensions are not the panacea PDOT likes to think they are, and they are cleary detrimental to cyclists in many instances, just ask Curt D., who was seriously injured when he crashed into the curb extension at SE 26th and Harrison.

#9 I posted a forum question asking about what laws regulate cars at the bike signal earlier today but I the signal at 41st and burnside is not nonsense. Crossing that 4 lane road used to be very dangerous especially if you were not someone who could accelerate from a stop quickly as the closing time for a car going 35 mph in the far lane would bring them from out of sight to hitting you in less time than it took to cross the road. I wholeheartedly support the move to hawk signals. These signals are heavily used in the Vancouver BC bike boulevard network to allow bike boulevards to cross large arterial roads. Drivers should actually be happy to have this as the traffic control device as not having a full on signal means less stopping for them. Cars on burnside only have to stop when there is actually a cyclist or pedestrian. However I would appreciate some clarification by PDOT of what the green bike light does mean for autos traveling on 41st. I believe that the city of portland had to get some special approval to put in the lights so perhaps concerns like this were addressed. If they were perhaps some explainatory signage could be put up so that cars get used to it before new ones are installed.

I agree that the Hawk light on Burnside and 41st is pretty close to useless. Most people WANT to follow the law, but if they can\’t understand what the signal is telling them to do, then they will get frustrated and ignore the signal. I myself have found that I could get through this intersection faster before the signal was installed. This hawk won\’t fly!

I\’m torn. While I realize that for busy intersections, things like this are often needed, part of me thinks that it only reinforces the notion that there needs to be a signal in order for cars to yield to peds, further marginalizing unmarked crosswalks (any public intersection).

As a side note, the last couple times they\’ve done high profile crosswalk stings, they\’ve always done them at marked crosswalks, further reinforcing the misconception that there needs to be \”stuff\” (lights, lines, etc.) involved to give peds the right-of-way.

G.A.R. said: I\’m against these rigs. I\’m usually real positive about investments in the bike/ped infrastructure, but these signals are nonsensical. I would much prefer a regular demand-driven signal like at the Belmont Library (with the addition of a traffic light for 41st and its analogues at the new sites).

The type of signal you are referring to (a pedestrian half-signal) is no longer permitted by the Federal Highway Administration. The HAWK signal is the only type of half-signal (that is, stops vehicles on the main street, signalized for bikes and peds on minor street, but still operates as stop sign for cars [so they have no incentive to start using the signal for their own nefarious car purposes]) available anymore, and it\’s still technically experimental.

Here\’s a comment I made on the subject a while back. Since then I\’ve found out that the reason the FHWA stopped allowing pedestrian half-signals is that they concluded that when drivers are used to seeing a green signal, they stop perceiving the signal, and were thus failing to stop when the light turned red. I haven\’t looked at the research myself, and I wonder if it holds true for locations like the 39th/Belmont one that get high levels of ped/bike activity — unfortunately, that\’s almost certainly the exception in a national perspective.

Anyway, HAWK signals are blank (not illuminated) most of the time, and illuminate only when activated. The idea is to successfully catch the attention of drivers, and so far research seems to be bearing out this theory.

For the record, I really like the HAWK at 41st and E. Burnside during rush hour; it helps so much! And you also don\’t have to use it if there are sufficient gaps to cross normally; you may treat it as a stop sign.

Jonathan – I live one block away from SE 26th and Harrison. There are no medians at this location, just one very large curb extension. See Curt\’s post to the Mercury\’s scariest intersections comments:

\”The intersection of SE Harrison & 26th Ave. is a fucking trip to the trauma center, especially at night. There the City of Portland has installed a \”traffic-calming device\”, a curb extension, that extends virtually the entire way across the westbound lane of SE Harrison, which –ironically!– is a designated bike boulevard.

There is a yellow sign with a big \”left\” arrow, intended to incourage motorists to turn left on SE 26th and get over to Division, leaving SE Harrison more free of cars so that bicyclists will be safer on it. HOWEVER, at night this \”traffic-calming\” curb extension is virtually invisible, and so is the stop sign at the intersection. The result is that at least four people have gone flying into that intersection, not seen the curb extension in time, and crashed HARD! I know because I\’m one of them. I broke my left scapula, fractured my facial bones in four places, ripped open my scalp above my left eye, suffered a serious concussion, and spent the night–unconscious–in the Legacy Emmanual Trauma center.

I woke up the next morning wondering where I was and how I got there.

The neighbors who found me laying out in the street at 10 p.m., bleeding and unconscious, say that when they found me I was having trouble breathing. (Yes, I had been wearing a helmet, which is why I was still alive.) The neighbors say that if they hadn\’t found me in time, I probably would have died there that night.

I understand and sincerely appreciate the City\’s efforts to divert automobile traffic away from designated bike boulevards, however, this particular intersection has the worst and most dangerous traffic-calming device (for cyclists), that I have ever encountered. Sadly, I\’m just one of several cyclists who discovered this the hard way.

BURR, the facility at 26th and Harrison is not actually a curb extension, it\’s a half street closure. A curb extension by definition only extends into the parking lane; it should never extend into the travel lane.

Obviously, the half street closure in question was very problematic for Curt, and my heart goes out to him. But I want to make sure that we\’re being clear about the facilities we\’re talking about.

I agree with division_rider (#3). I ride that stretch of Division on my daily commute, and bike lanes just don\’t make sense there. The traffic speeds are relatively slow, and there are lots of trucks going in all different directions — pulling onto the street, backing into loading docks, turning left and right, and going straight. The street was repaved less than 10 years ago, but the many heavy trucks have caused the old bumps and dips to reappear in the same places as before.

I like the present flexibility where I can decide where to position myself depending on existing conditions (visibility, traffic volumes and speeds, locations of parked vehicles). Sometimes that\’s off to the side, but sometimes it\’s safest to take the lane. Although I tend to like bike lanes, this is one place where they would decrease safety by locking cyclists into a specific area (i.e. that bumpy area near the side of the road where there are often trucks loading and unloading, and the path of parking or turning vehicles).

Rather than bike lanes on Division Place, I\’d like to see sharrows or share-the-road signage or slower speed limits or other traffic managment strategies that emphasize the need for heightened awareness and cooperation between all road users. Or perhaps just spend the money on filling the dips and smoothing the bumps (again).

Re: HAWK signals. It is not clear that bikes and peds may proceed if the way is clear without the aid of the light. I certainly didn\’t know it. Also, I am opposed to any bike signal that requires the cyclist to dismount or otherwise put his/her foot down to activate it. Do we ever require motorists to leave their vehicles or, say, engage the handbrake and lean across through the passenger window to activate a traffic sequence change?

Re: Harrison and 26th.
It is true that the left turn sign isn\’t very reflective and the stop sign can be obstructed by parked cars, there is a very visible, highly reflective \”Stop Ahead\” sign that precedes it.
I don\’t view the partial street closure as a problem and I ride it every day (although that is why I know it\’s there). However, the yellow left turn sign should be more reflective than it currently is.

I\’d like to see the Feds\’ research. If it\’s such a great idea to have blank lights until red how come we aren\’t seeing this change in all the Fire Signals that flash yellow 99% of the time?

Also, we have a law saying a blank light is equivalent to a stop sign. You need this rule for power failures. Again: idiocy. It\’s a pattern with this HAWK thing.

Jessica, Do you have any idea whether bikes (or cars for that matter) must obey the stop sign when the light is green? If not, where is the law? Similarly, do you have any idea if bikes must obey the light when it is red, after stopping? If not, why is it steady? The one thing that seems obvious is that cars don\’t have to obey the red light, after stopping. But if bikes do, then we\’re moving backward.

Does experimental mean there are no laws? If I am hurt by a car running those red lights, has the operator broken a law, or can he use the Experimental defense?

I walk my dogs to Wilshire Park fairly often, using the ped half-signal at NE 33rd Ave and Mason, and I ALWAYS make sure someone is stopping, because pretty regularly someone doesn\’t see the light is red and just blows through full speed. Blinking lights (i.e. HAWK) is obviously the way to go.

Jessica – I realize the curb extension at SE 26th and Harrison is somewhat unique.

I am more concerned that PDOT isn\’t examining the negative impacts of the curb extensions they are building throughout the city on the level of service for cyclists, particularly on bike boulevards and other heavily travelled bike routes.

I therefore will repeat once again that the curb extensions on SE Clay at SE 11, 12th and Grand; the curb extension at NW Everett and 16; and the curb extensions at SW Madison and 5th and 6th Avenues are all detrimental to bicyclists using these heavily travelled bike routes.

I apologize if I have used incorrect nomenclature to describe the solid concrete curb-like object that extends virtually all of the way across the downhill lane of SE Harrison at the intersection with SE 26th.

I, too, have travelled that road many, many times before my crash, (mostly in daylight) so I knew that that \”curb-thing\” was there–even if I couldn\’t see it at 10 p.m. in pitch darkness. Unfortunately, the concussion I suffered from the crash has wiped out any memory of what caused the crash & why exactly I hit the \”curb-thing.\”

The neighbors say that a skateboarder rang their doorbell within 30 seconds of my crash and told them that an injured cyclist was lying unconscious in the street and that they should call 9-1-1. (Thank you, whoever you are!)

Some folks have theorized that the skateboarder in question (most likely not sporting any lights or light-colored clothing) skated directly across my path, and I saw him at the last instant and swerved hard right to avoid hitting him, thus inadvertently running mys bike into the \”curb-thing.\”

Who knows? Perhaps I (foolishly) sacrificed myself to save a skateboarder! But I really have no memory of it.

Did you stop at the stop sign, Curt? Maybe you hurt yourself worse because you didn\’t slow down then had to react as that skateboarder that you definitely would have seen and heard because you were on a bike came in front of you? Do you really think you would have had the wreck if you had stopped at the stop sign instead of running it like you probably do every time you go through in the daylight?

I LOVE the signal at Burnside & 41st (Just used it this evening). It maks me feel so much safer crossing Burnside. I would love more of these. In fact, I sometimes use the one at 33rd and Mason when it\’s raining and dark and I don\’t feel like risking the Skidmore & 33rd Jig jog. I wish there were more in the NE. Might be nice to have one on 42nd and Skidmore!

Glad to see so many ped/bike improvements funded. I\’m not sure if the Rose Quarter Transit Center bike crossing was in the running for this, but I would\’ve liked to see the that get funded since it\’s so close to much of the work on the Big Pipe project and so crucial of a link to N/NE portland from the waterfront.

I have seen half street closures that had active. ie blinky yellow lights built into the concrete barrier. I think this is a really good idea for anything that extends into the street, they can be activated anytime the street lights are on and don\’t need to use much electricity as warning lights can be fairly minimal led\’s. I remember when corvallis put in a concrete median on the center turn lane of circle boulevard between 9th and 10th street. They didn\’t get it painted yellow the same day it was installed and I biked by around 11 pm to see a car high centered, its oil pan firmly planted in the new median. Any raised surface on a road should be well lit to protect all road users.

- Suppose (the HAWK light at 41st and Burnside) is green? Can a car proceed without stopping? The law is unclear. Common sense would suggest yes, since to get the light to change the motorist would have to get out, and push the button.-

More common sense (and less nonsense): Since the cyclist was there first and pushed the button to activate the green light which is a bike/ped light, not a regular traffic light, the motorist yields right of way to the cyclist and the cyclist gets to cross Burnside first, either way the motorist must yield to the cyclist when turning onto Burnside from 41st. Cyclist activates light, places him/herself in the middle of the lane and crosses first (they\’ll get the message).

With the increased volume of car traffic on Portland\’s streets, these lights are very necessary along busy bike routes. Let\’s hear it for the HAWK light!

Well, since nobody here can agree what to do in many situations around the HAWK (even while defending it!), it sounds like broken design to me. And nobody addressed the second major problem with it: to activate it, I must become a pedestrian -dismount my bicycle and push a button. Unacceptable.

You don\’t have to get off your bike to activate the signal at 41st and burnside unless there are a lot of leaves. There are two sets of activation buttons one for pedestrians and one right on the street for bikes. I usually ride right up to it, push the button an lean on it for the 3-4 seconds it takes the light to switch, and then ride off without unclipping…

welcome to Wilsonville is the same feeling i get… BUT wow the sign is
very nice to get people to open up their
eyes while driving.. I noticed in the school zones they might need to limit cars all together.. ( maybe a slogun ) saving people from their cars.. hehe

I have this dream of a carless city someday.. man that would be insain.
people talking and getting to know eachother as people not what they have.

I\’m glad to see that so many people are embracing the HAWK lights on 11th and 12th. Yes, they are expensive, but I think that the price is well worth it.
This is a very chaotic series of intersections, and traffic conflicts in this area will only increase when light rail is introduced to this area in a few years.

As a member of the CBO committee that funded this project, I can safely say that we gave careful consideration to both effectiveness and overall cost. In the end, we realized that the HAWK lights were the best way to calm this intersection. Other, less expensive modifications just wouldn\’t do enough to make things any safer.

Our next challenge is getting these HAWK lights up before light rail construction begins in the area in 2011.

Did I stop at the stop sign, put my foot down, and look in all three directions before proceeding thru the interesection? No. I did as most bicyclists ordinarily do; I looked for headlights of any oncoming vehicles from all three directions, didn\’t see any, and proceeded thru the intersection. The (theoretical) southbound skateboarder probably did the same, not realizing until too late that he and I were on a collision course.

If everyone obeyed all the traffic signs and signals 100 percent of the time, and if nobody\’s bike-light batteries and/or bulbs ever burned out, and if all road signs and curb-like obstructions were highly visible and clearly marked, even in the darkness at 10 p.m., then, of course, there would never be any crashes or collisions, ever.

In the real world, however, most of us tend to do what\’s expedient and makes sense based on the situation.

Those who designed and built this infamous \”Intersection of Doom\” at SE Harrison & 26th would probably argue that IF everyone ALWAYS has a bright headlight working on their bike, and if everyone ALWAYS comes to complete stop at this quiet neighborhood four-way stop, then it is a safe intersection.
Yeah, right.

As it turns out, I\’m just one of four people who have suffered serious crashes at that intersection as a direct result of a very unusual and unexpected curb design that doesn\’t appear to take real and natural human behavior into account.

I consider myself a safe cyclist: I always wear a helmet; I always have lights on at night; I wear reflective clothing. Based on my 25 years of experience as an adult cyclist, and a full-time, year-round bike commuter, I would have to say this intersection is very dangerous for cyclists, when you take into account the real-world behaviors of the typical, highly-experienced road user.